^^tWuY-t', %iM^Om^''^' ' 



t^i^'^l'^' 






\j<i/br^ 



'vVYUJ^^ 



0^. 



iSG5, 




Glass 



Lj.kl 



MkBs±dJL 



I 

REPRESENTATION OF SOUTHERN STATES. 
SPEECH ' 






:t> 



HON. ¥1. M. STEWART, OF NEVADA, 

IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 1, 18G6. 



The Senate having under consideration the follow- 
ing resolution: 

Be it TMolved hy the Ilnvae of RcprcientritiveR, (the 
Senate concurring,) That in order to close asitation 
upon a question \vhieh seems likely to disturb the 
action of the Government, as well as to quiet the un- 
eertaintv which is a£;itatinfr the minds of the people 
of the eleven States which have been declared to be 
in insurrection, no Senator or Representative shall 
be admitted into either branch of Congress from any 
ofsaid States until Congress shall have declared such 
State entitled to such representation. 

Mr. STEWART said : 

Mr. President : I should not regard tire reso- 

.lution under consideration as a matter of any 
great consequence if it stood alone, for I do not 
believe that it would have an.y binding force 
upon anyl)ody. But at a time when the country 

• is in agitation over conflicting opinions between 
Congress and the Executive ; when the voice 
and the hearts of the American people are up- 
lifted for ]>eace ; when we must either have peace 
or destruction ; when the very existence, per- 
haps, of our free institutions depends upon the 
calm, just, and patriotic disposition of all ques- 
tions, a resolution comingfromthe commucee of 
fifteen is a matter of grave consideration, and 
demands from everyone a careful examination. 
We slionld iuvcstigatc this matter and ascertain 
whether it will have any bearing toward har- 
mony and peace, for if each step that is taken 
now is not in the right direction it may do great 

• harm. We are, as it were, in this great contest 
like a rivulet. The contest has commenced in 
Congress ; it is now like a stream on the moun- 
tain side, which can easily be turned aside with 
the foot ; but if we throw slight obstructions in 
the way of the current of peace, until accumula- 

\ted difficulties form a torrent of discord, sweep- 
ing us doAvn into an ocean of trouble, it may be 
past human ] lower to avert the calamities which 
will threaten our country. 

I regard this resolution as a stumbling block, 
as an obstruction, as something that will retard 
peace and_ Union. It is said in its defense 
that it is simply declaring that Congress has 
power, that this power is in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, that it has been re- 
peatedly declared by acts of Congress and res- 
olutions of this body. If that be true, why 
throw this new element of discord now into our 



already confused deliberations? There are dif- 
ferences of opinion about it; but if those who 
have brought forward this resolution as a dec- 
laration of power are correct in supposing that 
the power is ingrafted in the fundamental law, 
the Constitution of the United States, why is 
this agitating question to occupy the attention 
of Congress? That Congress has the power 
to exclude southern members from seats here 
is best proved by the fact that it lias done it for 
the last twelve months, and still continues to 
do it, notwith.standingthewar has ceased. The 
world knows that we can do it, because we have 
done it. The first thing when I came into these 
Halls was a proposition to admit Tennessee and 
Louisiana, and I believe the honorable Senator 
from Illinois was anxious then that they should 
be admitted. I voted for the postponement of 
the question, for the reason that I was not then 
certain that the organizations there existing 
would be able to sustain themselves and main- 
tain their own existence. I was not sufficiently 
familiar with the question, and I voted to post- 
pone the consideration of the matter. We did 
not let them in then. We proved our power 
to keep them out. They have come here again 
at this session and asked for admission. They 
have not 3'et been admitted, not even within 
these Halls, although some of the members 
they have sent were always truly loyal and 
served in your armies or were distinguished 
citizens who had been tried in the fiery furnace 
of scission, where rebellion raged with all 
its fury, and had come out true to the Union. 
Even they are excluded from this Hall. Have 
we not the power? Has not that been suffi- 
ciently vlndic;rted? I think the world will an- 
swer, yes. Then, if you have the power to keep 
them out, if you have done it, if you have been 
exercising that power, why declare that yon 
have it? If there is no good result from a 
proposition of this kind, there may be evil. 

There are with regard to the ultimate result 
sought to be arrived at by this proposition dif- 
ferences of opinion. I have said before, there 
are two sets of opinions in regard to the mode 
of allowing the States to come back. There 
is a difference of opinion among good men. 
That difference of opinion threatens the very 



U-.)*'iAHjXa **'< 






destruction of the country. I have felt that 
embarrassment ever since I have been here. I 
came as thoroughly desirous of having this 
Union restored upon just and equitable princi- 
ples as any man ; and I am now desirous that 
all the States should be represented by loyal 
men. I yield to -no man in that desire. 

I have sustained this Government to the best 
of my ability throughout this war, and from its 
very first inception I have done it under all cir- 
cumstances and on all occasions ; and now in 
this issue I care not for self; I care not for the 
plaudits of men. If I can aid in contributing 
to bring about a restoration of these States and 
save this country from further war and future 
anarchy ; if I can aid in securing what has been 
accomjilished by our glorious warriors in the 
field; if I can aid in preserving that for poster- 
ity; if I can aid in the consummation of the 
prayers of those who love this country, it is my 
duty to do that ; and the smiles of power or the 
frowns of enemies or of those who may desire 
to detract from my motives are nothing to me. 
I love my country more than party. I love my 
country more than self-aggrandizement. I 
love my country more than miserable forms. 
If we can get the substantial thing, I shall be 
satisfied. But upon this proposition there is a 
diversity of opinion. It must lead to' a conflict 
of opinion, and its only operation, if it have 
any operation at all, is to delay union and peace. 

All profess to desire the same result. I hope 
their professions are sincere. I am bound to 
take it for granted that both Congress and the 
President desire to arrive at the same result. 
They want the Union restored. They want the 
governments of the southern States in the hands 
of the loyal men. I well recollect when this 
controversy commenced. It was Ijefore I came 
here ; it was at the time Mr. Lincoln issued his 
proclamation of reconstruction, which was, I 
think, in July, 18GJr. That proclamation was 
telegraphed to Nevada, where I live, and where 
we were struggling to maintain the Union cause ; 
and I recollect the opposition that that policy 
met. I remember the powerful protest of the 
Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wauk] and Mr. 
Davis, of Maryland, and the discussions upon 
it. I recollect going upon the stump and say- 
ing that these were minor controversies ; that 
what we wanted was the Union ; that the Union 
men would stand together, and go through the 
war successfully; that these matters were de- 
tails which we could arrange afterward, which 
would not deprive us of union. When I came 
here at the last session there was a controversy 
on these subjects ; but I had no idea that Union 
men would not be willing to yield their peculiar 
notions sufficiently to enable us to accomplish 
the great object. 

Mr. Johnson lias gone on with the same plan, 
except that he has restricted it somewhat ; he 
has restricted tlie number of persons to whom 
amnesty was extended by Mr. Lincoln. Mr. 
Johnson has excluded many from the right of 
voting and the right of holding oifice who oth- 
erwise would have been entitled. He has added 



some eight conditions to those which Mr. Lin- 
coln prescribed. Organizations have grown 
up in the southern States by the non-action of 
Congress. The war of rebellion' was over- 
thrown; the President must do something; he 
was not a dictator ; he simply took the issues 
of the war, and said to these men, ' ' Frame 
your governments upon this basis aud come to 
Congress for representation." 

Now, while I have not heard any substantial 
argument against what he did, while I have 
not heard any substantial argument against the 
forms of government set up in the southern 
States, I have constantly heard argument after 
argument for three long months to show, not- 
withstanding all this, that Congress had some 
power which had been overlooked in some way 
and was not being brought into proi^er exer- 
cise. I have heard argument after argument 
day after day here to show how we could keep 
these States out of the Union, but I have waited 
in vain for arguments to show how we could 
get them in. 

It is said that this resolution is a proclama- 
tion of the i^ower and an assertion of the right 
of Congress to declare when a State is entitled 
to representation. The President denies that 
Congress has the power to determine the ques- 
tion whether a State is entitled to representa- 
tion in the Senate of the United States, for the 
Constitution expressly provides "that no State 
without its consent shall be deprived of its equal 
suffrage in the Senate," and the whole instru- 
ment is based upon the right of each State to 
representation in Congress, and that right as 
an abstract right cannot be taken from any 
State because its people have been in insurrec- 
tion or for any other cause; but the abstract 
right must remain in each State as long as the 
Constitution and Union exist. But he does 
not say that therefore you have no power tt> 
keep traitors out of Congress. He says that 
all the acts of traitors in a State are void, that 
they cannot take a State out of the Union, but 
still you are to judge of the quallficfitlonti ot* 
your own members, you- are to investigate the 
"subject, and he says that covers the whole ques- 
tion. He says that you may determine upon 
the elections, returns, and qualifications of 
members, and in determining upon their elec- 
tion of course you will determine upon the qual- 
ifications of the parties who elected them. If 
the election is of a member from a congres- 
sional district, cannot the other House of Con- 
gress investigate the matter to see if the parties , 
who cast the votes and elected the member had 
the right of suftrage? If the election is of a 
Senator, cannot we inquirewhether the parties 
who cast the vote for him were acting in obe- 
dience to the laws of the United Staters and 
qualified to vote in the Legislatures of the States 
where they did vote? The respective Houses 
can inquire into the qualifications of the voters 
who send the parties here, Avhether they be 
State Legislatures, or whether they be thecon- 
stituents generally in a district. There is no 
doubt about that ; and the same result can be 



IN EXCHANQC 



accomplished in that way, in pursuance of the 
Constitution, that is sought to be accomplished 
in another mode. 

It seems to me that the power to susj^end 
the right of a State to representation may im- 
ply a dangerous power and may imply a right 
to suspend it for any reason that Congress may 
see fit. That is the danger about it. The power 
to suspend the right of a State to be repr^ented 
may hereafter be a terrible precedent. The 
President wishes to avoid that. Mr. Lincoln 
during the whole war carefully avoided deny- 
ing the right of a State to representation. He 
constantly denied that the Union was dissolved, 
that the laws admitting the States had been 
abrogated, that any of their acts while in re- 
bellion were legal so far as to take away the 
right of a State to representation. He said that 
the iDCople who rebelled had no right to repre- 
sentation, they were not in harmony with the 
Government, but they had not overthrown our 
Government, and that was a very material con- 
sideration that was carried all through the first 
part of the war. It was regarded as a very im- 
portant point never to be yielded. Mr. Lin- 
coln and his Administration cai-ried it through. 
Every proclamation issued by him speaks of 
the insurrection of the inhabitants and not of 
the States. We have gone on thus far, and 
if we can get through without announcing that 
dangerous principle that these acts of secession 
were really valid, if we can get these States 
back in any other way, if we can have loyal 
men to represent them and reconstruct them 
without acknowledging that the rebellion was 
a success, it is regarded by Mr. Johnson, and 
it is regarded by a great number of loyal men, 
as an important proposition. 

There is no provision in the Constitution 
conferring such a power upon Congress. No 
authority of the kind is expressed in that in- 
strument, nor can I find any. place where it is 
implied by just implication. In fact it was 
never anticipated that States would attempt to 
go out of the Union; and when they attempted 
to do it, we said that not being anticipated in 
the Constitution, that they could not do it le- 
gally, and any attempt on their part would be 
absolutely void. We started with that idea. 
This was simply a continuation of the discus- 
sion that commenced while Jeff. Davis was in 
this Hall. We said that they could not break 
the laws of Congress, that they must still be en- 
forced. Whether right or wrong, we have con- 
tinued on that idea. I say it is not necessary 
or proper to change it and get up a different 
declaration unless some great good can be ac- 
complished or some great necessity exists for 
it. If there has been any action of Congress 
upon the subject, admitting that acts of seces- 
sion were lawful or valid, 1 simply say that it 
was without warrant of the Constitution or laws, 
and if we have any precedents of that kind they 
are sufficient without the aid of a resolution 
which has no binding force upon the Senate. 

I have another objection to this resolution, 
and it is a very important one. The resolution 



upon its face contains an untruth. The main 
recital of this resolution is not true in regard 
to a fact which has been heretofore regarded 
as important, whether it be really important or 
not. I do not regard it as so important as some 
do. It speaks of the eleven States which have 
been declared to be in insurrection. I ask when 
and by whom were eleven States declared in 
insurrection? The proclamation of the Presi- 
dent, issued on the KJth of August, 1861, did 
not declare the States to be in insurrection ; but 
Abraham Lincoln, acting upon the same theory 
which the President is to-day carrying out, said, 
"I do hereby doclare that the inhabitants of 
certain States and parts of States," naming 
them, "are in a state of insurrection against 
the United States." Now, whatever you may 
do here which you admit has no binding force 
or effect on anybody, I protest against the re- 
cital of a fact which shall change the condition 
of things as they existed at the time of the issu- 
ance of that proclamation, or that shall place 
our late Pi-esident in a false position in regard 
thereto, because if there was any point upon 
which he was careful it was that. I have ex- 
amined all his proclamations, and he uniformly 
speaks of the insurrection of the inhabitants of 
the States. He always claimed that every loyal 
man in those States had a right to the protec- 
tion of the laws of Congress, and that if there 
was but one tenth of them loyal they might form 
a State government. That I thought was of 
doubtful propriety, because I did not believe 
they could maintain it, but he all the while coTi- 
tended for the rights of those who remained 
loyal. He said that the inhabitants of a State 
might rebel, but the State never, and that all 
the laws of Congress, and the solemn compact 
of the Constitution should ever remain as a 
shield to every loyal man who might dwell in 
the South. That was the theory, and it is not a 
very preposterous one. It is the one on which 
we fought the vv-ar. It is the one that we in- 
serted in our platform ; and I protest that that 
proclamation of the 16th of August, 1861, shall 
not be made to declare that President Lincoln 
ever said or intimated that a State was in re- 
bellion, for the language of the proclamation is 
as I have read. He declared the inhabitants 
of States and parts of States in insurrection. 

Now, if this resolution was made to conform 
to the truth it v^'ould read thus : 

That hi order to close agitation upon a question 
which seems lilccly to disturb the action of the Gov- 
ernment, as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is 
agitating the minds of the people of the eleven States 
whose inhabitants have been declared to bo in insur- 
rection, no Senator or Representative shall be admit- 
ted into either branch of Congress from any of said 
States until Congress shall have declared such Stato 
entitled to such representation. 

Now, is that a correct principle? Is it cor- 
rect abstractly? It has no importance except 
as a declaration of principle. It is not legis- 
lation. It will have no legislative effect. There 
is no other excuse for it except its purity of 
i:)rinciple. It is simply a declaration of prin- 
ciple. It is not to accomplish any ulterior end* 
It is simply brought in here as a grand declar? 



I 



4 



tion of some important principle. In passing 
bills, when there is a desire to reach some legit- 
imate end, I can excuse inaccuracies in the 
statement of reasons ; but if we are going to 
have a broad declaration of principle, I wantit 
not only to conform to the truth, but to be a 
principle vipon which we can stand. 

Then, if this resolution be correct in principle, 
it means that if a portion of the people of a 
State go into insurrection that State shall be 
excluded from representation in Congress just 
so long as Congress may elect. I do not say 
that that principle ever will be, and I hope it 
never may be, applied to any other section or 
to this section again ; but I ask you, are you 
willing to apply it to other sections? If a part 
of the people of a State rebel, you say Congress 
may then exclude loyal Representatives from 
the Congress so long as they may elect to do so. 

Suppose the inhabitants or parts of the in- 
habitants of a State should be declared by the 
Pres^i^ent to be in insurrection, and there should 
be a collision between the Congress and the 
President ; suppose the President should hap- 
pen to declare some section particularly hostile 
to him or to his party to be in insurrection, the 
question as to the right of the fetate to represen- 
tation would be open and Congress would pos- 
sess full power to exclude it. It does seem to 
me that this resolution is not of sufficient im- 
portance as an enunciation of principle that we 
should take up the time of Congress to consider 
it for a very long period at this important crisis. 
Why take time now to consider a resolution 
which its friends admit amounts to nothing, 
and which cei'tainly cannot be maintained in 
point of principle? It is fortunate for the 
chairman of the committee of fifteen who re- 
ported this resolution to the House that this 
new doctrine was not understood, or at all events 
not aj^plied, at the time of the " whisky insur- 
rection' ' or the buckshot war in Pennsylvania. 

Is it not a dangerous doctrine to admit, first, 
that a State may lose its right to representation, 
or, in other words, go out of the Union, and sec- 
ond, whether the State has done so or not is a 
matter which Congress may determine ? Jeff. 
Davis said that a State could go out of the 
Union, and that the State was the proper tribu- 
nal to determine when that fact was accom- 
plished. That roused the whole loyal heart of 
the people of the North. They rose against it. 
They fought it in these Halls. Mr. Lincoln 
came into power. You undertook to deny it, 
and it was the intensity and logic of that dis- 
cussion that was then had which went through 
this rebellion and saved the country. This res- 
olution says, in fact, that a State may go out of 
the Union, but that Congress is the sole judge 
when that fact has been accomplished. That 
is the difference. I do not care much whether 
the State judges or Congress judges. The Con- 
stitution is fixed ; they cannot go out. I deny 
their power to go out, and I deny the power of 
Congress to put a State out or to force a State 
out, and I also deny the power of rebels and 
traitors to do it. We did deny it, and when 



they attempted to do it and submitted it to the 
arbitrament of war we decided the case on the 
battle-field that the laws and the Constitution 
of the United States were supreme and para- 
mount and could not be destroyed. I do not 
want to take that declaration back. I have got- 
ten into the habit of arguing it in that way. I 
have been through political campaigns and met 
copperheads on that issue, and I do not like to 
be compelled to recall my words and admit that 
I am wrong, because there are many men who 
can understand this issue and meet us on it. 

It may be said that Congress is a safer tribu- 
nal before which to try that question than a 
single State ; but are we certain that the ma- 
jority of Congress may not some day, if this 
principle shall be maintained and become a 
precedent, find it convenient for party purposes, 
or tq gratify sectional prejudices, to make other 
divisions or exclude from the Union other States 
besides tliose referred to in this resolution ? The 
principle is a dangerous one; and if the reso- 
lution be adopted it may do more harm than 
will at first appear ; but if we are simply here 
to declare principles, and notto legislate or take 
action, I say declare correct principles. It has 
cost too much blood and treasure to vindicate 
the integrity of the Union and to establish its 
indivisibility for us to admit that such a thing 
could be possible under any circumstances. 

But it may be said that denj-ing the right of 
a State to representation is not denying the fact 
that the State is in the Union. I ask what is 
the difference? Would any Senator here say 
that if every man in the State of South Caro- 
lina was as loyal as the Senator from Michigan 
had been, as true and as faithful to the cause 
as he has been during this war and after the 
rebellion was over, although during the war they 
had been overcome by treason, and elected the 
honorable Senator from Michigan and sent him 
here, that he should not be received ? If they 
were every one that way, I ask, would you think 
of excluding him? I think not. I say, how 
can a State be in the Union and not be entitled 
abstractly to representation, that being the 
object for which the Union was formed? 

But we are told by some that the States 
whose inhabitants have recently been in rebel- 
lion are not States at all; but that question 
can hardly arise under this resolution, for the 
resolution itself calls them States, and I shall 
not question the truth of that recital ; for the 
argument of the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. 
Howe,] although an effort of marked ability, 
failed to convince me that any State has been 
either killed or committed suicide, and since 
that Senator's great effort the Supreme Court 
of the United States have added to the execu- 
tive branch of the Government their authority 
to the effect that the Union has not been dis- 
solved. Upon the breaking out of the rebel- 
lion that court declined to hear cases from the 
States whose inhabitants were declared to be 
in rebellion, but not for the reason that those 
States had gone out of the Union. 

If this discrimination between a State and 



its inhabitants is foolish, why does the Supreme 
Court keep up that distinction? The Supreme 
Courtall thewhllecalls them States, but speaks 
of the interruption of process by the insurrec- 
tion of the inhabitants, and assigned that as a 
reason why it would not hear cases from those 
States. The Supreme Court said that the in- 
habitants of certain States have been declared 
to be in insurrection ; we cannot carry out our 
process there, and will not hear those causes. 

That is what they said when the rebellion broke 
out. They did not base their reason, mark 
you, on the fact that the States had gone into 
rebellion, but that the inhabitants of the States 
had gone into rebellion, and they could not issue 
process. That is the reason why they did not 
hear cases during the rebellion. 

But at the present term the court has set sev- 
eral causes from Louisiana and other southern 
States, which could only))e done upon the sup- 
position that these are States in the Union, for 
the Supremo Court could only exercise such 
jurisdiction as is conferred by the Constitution 
and laws of the United States. Tiie Constitu- 
tion and the judiciary acts under which the 
court entertains jurisdiction in these cases 
apply to States, as the court have repeatedly 
held. 

The jurisdiction that this court exercises 
over the Territories is altogether distinct, and 
is derived from that clause in the Constitution 
which empowers Congress to make all needful 
rules and regulations respecting the territory or 
other property belonging to the United States ; 
and the court has frequently decided that be- 
fore any jurisdiction could be exercised in aTer- 
ritory, Congress must expressly authorize the 
exercise of such jurisdiction by law. I am not 
aware that Congress has passed any law by 
which a case could be brought either from the 
Territory of Tennessee or Louisiana, and no 
law can be found authorizing the court to hear 
and determine cases to wliich I have referred 
unless they originated in States in this Union. 

Will you say, if they are States, that all States 
have not the right of representation as an ab-. 
stract right? There may be no one worthy to 
represent them ; and, unfortunately for the loyal 
men of the South in many sections, they did 
not have loyal men to represent them. It was 
unfortunate for us that we had not the power 
to succor them and guaranty to them repre- 
sentation. It was unfortunate for us that we 
had to turn them over to be slaughtered by the 
cruel conspirators. But I deny that they lost 
their citizenship. I deny that the State of 
Tennessee was ever out of the Union. I deny 
that the President of the United States is or 
ever has been an alien. I deny that Maynard 
is an alien. I deny that Brownlowis an alien. 
I deny that any loyal man who stood firm in the 
darkest night of the rebellion is an alien. I 
will not vote for any motion, rule, resolution, 
or other proceeding that can imply such a thing 
by tlie most casuistical argument ; and I say 
that this resolution is capable, I think, on a fair 
construction, but it is capable at all events of 



the construction that the Union of the States 
has been dissolved. There is no use in throw- 
ing these irritating questions into the already 
too much excited state of the public mind. 

But it is said, to what does this argument 
lead? Have we not the power to prevent.trai- 
tors and rebels from taking seats in this Sen- 
ate ? Jeff. Davis said we had no power to make 
war upon them unless we admitted they were 
a foreign power. They said we had no right 
to make war unless we admitted they were out 
of the Union, that we could not make war upon 
a State. We replied to Jeff. Davis, we do not 
propose to make war upon a State, but we will 
make war upon traitors. That is the way we 
met the argument. That is the way the Union 
soldiers met the argument. Now, you say that if 
we admit that a State is in the Union, and that 
it has the rights of a State, we cannot keep 
traitors out of Congress. I deny it. It does 
not follow. The Senate has no right to allow 
traitors to come into this Hall, because they 
are not qualified. We have a right to expel 
them after they come here. We are bound to 
do it. If a man is elected by a disloyal organ- 
ization, in violation of good faith to the Govern- 
ment, you have a right to inquire into that as 
a part of his election. You have done it and 
can do it without any congressional action. 
I intend to see that disloyal persons are ex- 
cluded, so far as my vote goes, but I do not 
intend to admit that the logic of Jeff. Davis 
wag correct. 

The power of the Senate to protect itself is 
too well understood for anybody to doubt it. 
It can just as well protect itself as it can with 
the other House to help it. Suppose that a 
person should come here claiming to be a Sen- 
ator, and the question should arise whether the 
Legislature that elected him was loyal. Sup- 
pose that some of the members of that Legis- 
lature had been convicted of treason and were 
not entitled to seats in that legislative body, 
but were mere usurpers in it, and his creden- 
tials v/ere here, would we not investigate the 
fact to see whether he "obtained the requisite 
number of legal votes to elect him, and would 
we call upon the House to help us in the decis- 
ion of that question ? 

You say that otherwise it may happen that 
a State may be represented in the House and 
not in the ' Senate, or vice versa. May it not 
happen that certain districts of a State are en- 
titled to representatio;i, and the whole State 
not be entitled to representation ? Supposti 
that a district is truly loyal, as has been the 
case in several instances ; suppose that every 
man, woman, and child within that district is 
willing to stand by the flag, and a member is 
elected by and goes to the other House from 
that district, have the laws of that State been, 
so abf-ogated, is the State out of the Union so 
that that House cannot investigate the fact 
whether his loyal constituents shall be there 
represented ? 

It may be that the majority of a State may 
be loyal, and may organize a loyal State gov- 



6 



ernment, and there may be districts in that 
State that cannot be represented, or districts 
that will not send i^roper men. I deny that 
■when you admit the right of a State to repre- 
sentation you are bound to admit all the dele- 
gation from that State at once. You are to 
investigate the cases of the persons who come 
here, and see whether they come up to your 
standard. Each House can do that better sep- 
arately than they can jointly, for a joint rule 
may not work well. Do you pretend to say 
that if there is a district in the South that has 
always been loyal during this war, Jeff. Davis 
had the power to deprive those people of the 
right of representation? If so, why? Because 
he has abrogated the laws of Congress; and for 
no other reason. Davis never did have control 
of East Tennessee. He was simply a raider 
there. Those people stood out from the begin- 
ning to the end. They fouglit treason where it 
•was darkest and thickest. Do you say that, not; 
■withstanding he could not quench their insa- 
tiable thirst of liberty and loyalty, notwith- 
standing he could not nuifke them false to the 
Union l)y burning their houses over their de- 
fenseless heads, and by robbing them of their 
property, he could render them incapable of 
enjoying the privileges to which they are enti- 
tled under the Constitution ? 

If these people in the case I have supposed 
have lost their right of representation, it is not 
from their titatus ; because in that section the 
ataius was just as good as anybody's, but ft-om 
the fact that there was some validity in the or- 
dinance of secession ; and if we admit that va- 
lidity, and say that we are forced to readmit 
the State or pass any resolution that may be so 
construed, the precedent will surely injure the 
perpetuity of our Government. It is admitting 
a rotten plank. It is admitting that a part of 
the people of a State may deprive the remain- 
der of the rights which they have under the 
Constitution. That is something that the last 
Administration and the Union party i« the late 
struggle were tenacious about. 

This resolution says that they shall not be 
admitted until Congress shall declare those 
States entitled to representation. If that is so 
how is Congress to declare it? I ask in all 
seriousness, how shall they declare it? Suppose 
they do it by a law, that law must assume, as 
this resolution does, that these eleven States 
are not States in the Union and entitled to 
representation, no matter how loyal the State 
governments or the Senators or Representa- 
tives who apply for admission may be ; but the 
President — and here is his crime — has ex- 
pressed a different opinion. He holds that loyal 
men representing State governments in these 
rebellious States that are in conformity to the 
• laws of the United States may be admitted to 
Congress. If you say, how do we know that 
their constitutions are in accordance with it, 
how do we know that they have such constitu- 
tions, I say examine them, just as you do in 
every case. Suppose the State of California 
should change her constitution, as she has once 



done, and elect a Senator and send him here, 
would you have to readmit the State? 

I hold that no State has gone or can go out of 
the Union, and consequently so far as being in 
the Union is concerned they at all times remain 
the same. The loyal men in those States have 
a right to the Constitution and laws of the 
United States ; the disloyal have not the right 
of representation ; the loyal have, and if there 
is a sufficient rumber of loyal men to govern 
the State, they have the right to form a State 
government. 

In the darkest time of the rebellion I deny 
that the right to represent Tennessee in this 
Hall by those who were loyal ever was for a 
moment suspended, but their power to obey 
the law, their power to represent it was pre- 
vented by treason. They were overpowered, 
and they were denied their right of represen- 
tation, not by Congress, not by the Govern- 
ment. This war was to maintain for them that 
right which rebellion had sought to take away 
from them, and had for a time suspended the 
harmonious relations of the State to the Gen- 
eral Government; and it will be too much to 
admit that this Government has ever been in 
such a fix that the people thereof were really 
not entitled to the protection of the Consti- 
tution, and because they were denied it this 
war was brought on, this war was prosecuted. 
A man may have a right to a farm, and a 
trespasser may keep him out of it, but if he 
sues on his right, he recovers not a new farm, 
not a new title, but he recovers the title he had 
before. We said that the loyal men in the South 
had a right to the Union, to the laws, to repre- 
sentation, that rebels had no right to take these 
from them ; they had no right to usurp the au- 
thority of this Government, and we called upon 
the loyal masses to rally to our aid. We tried 
the suit before the god of battles, and, thank 
God, we won it, and we restored to those loyal 
men their right of representation, which existed 
all the time, but which traitors attempted and did 
for a time prevent them from enjoying. 

In discussing these questions, it is embar- 
rassing for any one to do so without taking into 
consideration all the circumstances by which 
we are surrounded and the other ^propositions 
of this committee, and I propose to take up the 
other propositions, so as to see from time to 
time how this bears upon the general question. 

There is another proposition of the committee 
of fifteen, which, if passed, will obviate the ne- 
cessity of passing this, and obviate the necessity 
of any further constitutional amendment, and I 
think obviate the necessity of any more State 
Legislatures or conventions. To that I propose 
to call the attention of the Senator, and it may 
be if we pass that, it is everything that it is 
necessary to do. I believe it accomplishes the 
whole work. All other legislation to fix guar- 
antees is very unimportant if the article recently 
reported is passed, and I call the special atten- 
tion of the Senate to this proposition to amend 
the Constitution of the United States. The 
resolution has not been at all discussed here, 



and my only object in calling attention to it is 
to show that it is apart of the work of this same 
committee, and to estimate if possible how long 
legislation will have to be delayed if this reso- 
lution passes. The merits of one depends so 
much upon the other that it is impossible, it 
seems to me, to consider one fairly, and par- 
ticularly the one under consideration, without 
an examination of the others, in order to see 
whether it is necessary to wait for their final 
adoption or whether they are ever likely to l)e 
adopted. The propositions are three in num- 
ber ; the one which immediately preceded the 
resolution under consideration proposes the fol- 
lowing as an amendment to the Constitution: 

Article — . The Consrres? sliall hnve power to m.ake 
all laws which shall be necessary and proper toseeure 
to the citizens of each State all privileges and immu- 
nities of citizens in the several States; and to all per- 

^ sons in the several States equal protection in the 

I rights of life, liberty, and property. 

This resolution has not been discussed. My 
only object in calling attention to it in this con- 
nection is that this part of the plan of recon- 
struction for which time is asked may not be 
overlooked. If I understand it correctly, it 
would work an entire change in our form of 
government. The first clause is not very ma- 
terial perhaps. It provides that Congress may 
pass laws to carry into effect apart of the Con- 
stitution of the United States as it now stands, 
which might be all well enough if the United 
States courts had not already complete juris- 
diction to make part provisions of the Consti- 
I tution effectual ; for a citizen of each State will 
enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citi- 
zens of the several States, unless some State 
should pass a law abridgingthat right, which law 
would be unconstitutional, and the courts would 
be bound so to declare. 

I repeat, the present provision of the Consti- 
tution will have all the effect of securing to the 
citizens of each State all the rights and immu- 
nities of the citizens in the several States, un- 
less some State passes a law which denies that 
right. Then the United States courts have 
jurisdiction. Missouri once undertook that ex- 
periment in the memorable contest of 1819-20. 
An act was passed to allow Missouri to form a 
State government with slavery, provided cer- 
tain territory should be reserved to freedom. 
She organized a constitution, and came here for 
admission with a clause that.negroes and mu- 
lattoes should not enter the State, or rather she 
> said that the first session of the Legislature 
should pass such a law. Congress decided that 
this was in violation of the constitutional pro- 
vision that the citizens of each State should 
enjoy all the rights and immunities of citizens 
of the several States, /ind Mr. Clay, after the 
subject was discussed for weeks and weeks, 
offered a proviso which was adopted, and sent 
the State back. The proviso said that she might 
come into the Union if her Legislature would 
consent never to exercise that power : and it 
was sent back because it was in conflict with 
the Constitution of th(? United States. 

I believe Illinois aud some of the western 



States did practically carry this out for awhile, 
refusing to allow free negroes to go among 
them ; but it was not for the want of a law but 
for the want of somebody to enforce it. The 
courts were open to anybody to enforce it. 
We had law enough. Why empower Congress 
to pass a law when you have the protection of 
the Constitution ? But that is not the material 
part of this resolution ; I v/ish to call the atten- 
tion of the chairman to it, for I am in earnest 
about my construction and believe that I am 
correct. The last clause taken in connection 
with the first part of the sentence, omitting the 
intervening words, reads as follows : 

The Congress shall have power to make all laws 
which shall be necessary and proper to secure to all 
persons in the several States, equal protection in the 
rights of life, liberty, and property. 

That is to say, Congress shall have power 
by law to make all the laws in all the States 
affecting the protection of either life, liberty, or 
property, precisely similar; for the protection 
of life, liberty, and property, must be equally 
secured to all persons in all the States. And 
how shall this be effected, unless the laws are 
equal? And how shall they be made equal 
except by Congress? The laws of the several 
States in this Union are very dissimilar in many 
respects, and some may afford greater protec- 
tion to life, liberty, and property than others ; 
but Congress must examine and modify all these 
laws, so that they shall afford the same protec- 
tion in all the States that they do in any. The 
only way this could be accomplished, would be 
for Congress to legislate fully upon all subjects 
affecting life, liberty, and property, and in this 
way secure uniformity and equal pi-otection to 
all persons in the several States. When this 
was done, there would not be much left for the 
State Legislatures, for I apprehend that the 
great body of the laws of the several States as 
in fact of any government relate to the protec- 
tion of life, liberty, and property. 

Undoubtedly this had reference to some other 
subject. It undoubtedly had reference to pro- 
tecting the negro or something of that kind, 
but it does not say that they shall have the 
same rights and privileges in the several States 
as in any State, but it says throughout the 
United States. The laws affecting life, liberty, 
and property shall equally secure these end's. 
Congress must pass all laws affecting life, lib- 
erty, and property, and I would like to know 
what is left to the States after you pass all 
these laws ; and it must be done so as to secure 
these ends equally to all persons. We shall 
have no necessity for State Legislatures when 
that is done. But I hardly think when this is 
examined that anybody will favor it. We have 
got along so far so well that I hardly think we 
are willing to say that the laws of the States 
shall not continue to afford protection to all 
persons within their limits. I think the com- 
mittee had in view one object, but by their 
amendment would accomplish another. 

Is all action going to be postponed until this 
amendment is adopted by the States ? I do not 



8 



think it -will ever be adopted, and if adopted 
there will be great difficulty in making laws 
equal in Massachusetts and in South Carolina 
so as to protect life, liberty, and property in 
the same way in both. It seems to me that the 
grammatical, legal, and necessary construction 
of this proposed amendment can hardly have 
been intended by its framers. 

Mr. S. gave way for a motion to adjourn. 

Thursday, March 1, 1866. 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the res- 
olution relating to representation of southern States. 

Mr. STEWART continued : 

Mr. President : Before the meeting of Con- 
gress, various propositions were suggested in 
the public prints for amendments to the Con- 
stitution as guarantees for the future security 
of the country. It was feared that there 
would be an effort on the part of the late rebel- 
lious States to embarrass the Government by 
attempts to assume, in some form, obliga- 
tions incurred in support of the rebellion. I 
was one among the number who had some 
fears on this subject, and although most of the 
southern States had expressly repudiated the 
rebel debt, still I felt that it would not be un- 
reasonable to place that repudiation beyond 
recall, by a national compact, and it seemed to 
me that no one could complain of such com- 
pact byway of amendment to the Constitution, 
inasmuch as the justice of the i^rojjosition was 
manifest to all, and denied by none, the only 
objection being that it was a work already ac- 
complished, and no danger was to be appre- 
hended from that source. I still think that 
an amendment of this kind, properly worded, 
would be readily adopted by all the States, both 
North and South, and might prevent harm to 
the country. At all events, it would be a guar- 
antee of some value to loj^al men, and need not 
retard for a single day the work of reconstruc- 
tion, for with the present state of feeling the 
South would be quite as ready to adopt it as the 
North. It is but a declaration of a conceded 
proposition i:)erfectly in harmony with the spirit 
of the Constitution and the verdict of the war. 

But this is not a proposition under consid- 
eration. There was another question growing 
out of the abolition of slavery which changed 
the basis of representation in the South from 
the entire population, less two fifths of the 
slaves, to the whole population without any 
reduction whatever. The public mind was much 
exercised over this question, and the general 
verdict of the people, as manifested through the 
press, was that the basis of representation 
should be so changed as not to accord to the 
South increased representation as a reward for 
rebellion, and it was generally conceded that 
that could be accomplished by adopting male 
citizens of the United States over the age of 
twenty-one years, who are allowed to vote in 
their respective States, as the basis of repre- 
sentation, and the assessed value of property, 
both real and personal, as the basis of taxation. 
Both of these propositions are embodied in the 



resolution which I shall offer as a substitute for 
that reported by the committee: 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the 
several States which may be included within this 
Union according to the number of male citizens of 
the United States in each State over twenty-ono 
years of age qualified by the laws thereof to choose 
members of the most numerous branch of its Legis- 
lature. And direct taxes shall be levied in each 
State according to the value of real and personal 
property situated therein not belonging to the State 
nor to the United States. 

These propositions appeared for a time tu 
meet with universal favor, for they aj^peared to 
be founded in justice and equality. It based 
the political power of the country upon the num- 
ber of voters, giving each an equal voice ; giving 
a voter in California the same representation 
here as one in Mississippi ; making an elector in 
Ohio equal to one in Kentucky. It said to the 
South, " If your negroes, women, and children 
do not vote they shall not be counted ; not be-, 
cause they are negroes, women, and children, 
but because they are not voters. ' ' It said to the 
North, "If3'Oudo not allow your aliens and 
women and children to vote they shall not be 
counted ; not because they are aliens, women, 
and children, but because they are not voters.' ' 
It left the control of the elective franchise where 
the Constitution of the fathers had placed it, 
within the jurisdiction of the several States, only 
limiting their representation in Congress to such 
male citizens over the age of twenty-one years 
in the several States as the States themselves 
would trust with the ballot. This, it was thought, 
would be a sufficient inducement to all the 
States to extend the right of suffrage to all who 
could safely exercise that right. It would not 
only secure to the negro a fair prospect of be- 
ing enfranchised when his advancement in civ- 
ilization shall have entitled him to that high 
prerogative, but would also allow that privi- 
lege to be conferred upon him gradually, as it 
has been done in some of the States of New 
England, whr-ro he now enjoys many of the 
privileges as well as all the rights of citizenship, 
and so fast as he is enfranchised in any State 
he is counted in the basis of its representation. 
This is the most favorable position for the ne- 
gro to occupy, for it avoids the necessary con- 
flict that must arise in forcing the emancipated 
slave, all unprepared for the conflict, upon a 
politicaLequality with his late master — a posi- 
tion which the Senator from Maine himself has 
told us no one will contend is desirable. 

This resolution accomplishes another object 
quite as important in my estimation as the ques- 
tion of rej^resentation itself, and that is, it holds 
out an inducement to the South to allow the 
northern emigrantto vote, and makes the prop- 
osition recently brought/orward in the Virginia 
Legislature to require five years' residence be- 
fore a Union soldier from the North can vote 
in the Old Dominion quite as detrimental to 
Virginia herself as to the American citizen to 
whom she denies the elective franchise. Here 
let me say that the idea suggested in the prop- 
osition to require five gears' residence to qual- 
ify an American citizen to vote in Virginia, is 



9 



the most unfriendly and disloyal manifestation 
since the fall of the rebellion, and its malice is 
only surpassed by its folly. Would not the fact 
that voters only are counted in the basis of rep- 
resentation, operating with other things, induce 
the South to abandon such madness ? 

It is said by the Senator from Maine that 
we arc aecustosaed to the idea that representa- 
tion should be based upon population, that it is 
a part of the genius of our institutions 5 but let 
me ask that Senator, if such be the case, why 
make an exception as in his proposition ; why 
make any change in the Constitution what- 
ever? Have we not become accustomed to 
the whole Constitution as it is, and if such an 
argument be soitnd, does it not prove too much? 
But what was the real reason why the propo- 
sition to make voters the basis of representa- 
tion was abandoned ? It was a gentleman from 
\ New England, I believe, who suggested that 
it would not operate fairly upon the old States 
from which the young men who have built up 
the West have emigrated, leaving a surplus of 
females, and a comparison was instituted be- 
tween Vermont and California, and upon this 
l^artial view, without any examination into the 
general effect of the amendment, the whole 
plan was abandoned and a system of indirec- 
tion adopted which I shall hereafter discuss 
more at length. Were the fears of New Eng- 
land well grounded ? Is it a fact that her non- 
voting population bearsa greater proportion to 
the whole population than that of the great 
States of the northwest? An examination of 
the census of 18(J0 shows the reverse to be true. 
For while the East has a greater proportion of 
females, the West has a greater proportion of 
minors, and strange as it may seem, that while 
the white males over twenty years of age in the 
States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Illi- 
nois, and Wisconsin constitute only one third 
of the whole population, or eleven in thirty- 
three, in the New England States the ratio of 
white males over twenty to the balance of the 
population is as eleven to twenty-nine — I do 
not pretend that my figures are exactly correct, 
as I was compelled to omit fractions, but are 
sufficiently so for the purposes of this argument. 
Tested by another rule, taking Mr. Coxklixg's 
table, prepared with great care, we find that 
representation based on white suffrage would 
give an increase of nine Representatives in the 
States east of the Alleghany mountains, namely, 
^ one to Connecticut, two to Massachusetts, one 
to Maine, one to New Jersey, and four to New 
York, while the States west of the AUeghanies 
would gain only five. This, however, might 
be somewhat modified on account of the foreign 
males over twenty which we have no means Ijy 
the census of separating from the aggregate of 
white males over that age. But the changes 
occasioned by this element would certainly not 
be prejudicial to the East, the preponderance 
of foreigners being in the West, and the popu- 
lation of California, which has been held up as 
an example of the extreme injustice and ine- 
,£uality of this proposition, is nearly fifty per 



cent, foreign. When actual voters are made 
the basis and not white males over twenty, by 
which we now only approximate the result, 
Vermont will not cry out against the unjust 
representation of California. 

Suppose California should be largely repre- 
sented for a few years until population should 
regulate itself; suppose she should have one 
or two Representatives more than Vermont, 
with one hundred and seventy-five thousand 
voters to eighty- seven thousand in Vermont; 
with a territory greater than all New Eng- 
land and the middle States combined ; with 
$50,000,000 a year exports, while Vermont has 
only $850,000; with $210,000,000 worth of 
property, while Vermont has only $179,000,000 ; 
with $1,200,000 worth of manufactures and 
productions, while those of Vermont are valued 
at only $437,000 ; and finally, paying into the 
national Treasury on account of internal rev- 
enue nearly ft)ur million dollars, while Vermont 
pays less than eight hundred thousand, and 
with the third port of entry in the United States. 
If, sir, I repeat, she should have one. or two 
more Representatives than Vermont, would a 
great wrong be committed? I take Vermont 
and California, for between these the compar- 
ison is usually instituted. Take the proposi- 
tion of the committee, and California has two 
Representatives and Vermont three, for Cali- 
fornia will never allow her Chinese population 
to vote, and they mvist be excluded from the 
basis of representation. You say they are not 
citizens. Why have they not become so? Be- 
cause they khow very well that they will not be 
allowed to vote in any event ; and consequently 
California is not much troubled with their ap- 
plications for citizenship. But let it be known 
that California cannot afford to exclude them 
from the right of suffrage, and the question will 
be at once forced upon her to decide whether 
she will allow Chinese to vote or lose her just 
representation in the Halls of Congress. The 
same question will be presented to Nevada and 
the other Pacific States in the next five years, 
and the Chinaman will become the negro of the 
Pacific. But it may be said by some, let him 
vote. I can only say to them, you do not know 
the Chinaman. They will reply that this is 
the argument of the South, that Senators from 
the North do not ]^now the negro. But is 
there no force in the argument even as to the 
negro, who is an American, generally a believer 
in the Christian religion ? And with how much 
more force can this argument he used with 
regard to the pagan Asiatic, speaking an un- 
known tongue, and being a stranger, and ever 
remaining an alien and a stranger, to our lan- 
guage and our institutions. The following is 
the proposition of the committee : 

Article — . Representatives shall be apportioned 
among the several States which may be included 
within tlus Union according to their respective num- 
bers, counting the whole number of persons in each 
State, excluding Indians not taxed: J^i-ovided,Thii,t 
wlienever the elective franchise shall be denied or 
abridged in any State on account of race or color, all 
persons therein ofsuch race or color shall be excluded 
from the basis of representation. 



10 



What are the arguments in favor of this 
strange proposition? The only one that I 
have yet heard is, that it will force the South 
to universal suffrage or deprive her of an ac- 
knowledged right ; for the proposition asserts 
that population is the just basis of representa- 
tion, but that the late slave States shall be 
excluded from that liasis until they will extend 
suffrage to the blacks. But it may be said 
that this provision applies equally to the blacks 
of the North with those of the South. This is 
a mere subterfuge, for every one knows, so 
far as the practical question is concerned, that 
there are no negroes in the North, or not a 
sufficient number, to make any material dif- 
ference whether they are included or excluded. 
The non-voting poijulation of the North con- 
sists of aliens, women, and minors. The non- 
voting population of the South consists of ne- 
groes, women, and minors. The North will 
exclude on account of alienage, f^x, and age, 
and avoid the operation of the proviso ; while 
the South and the Pacific coast must either 
confer universal suffrage on negroes and Chi- 
namen, or lose their just representation. This 
will ever l)e a source of discontent, and it will 
be hard to explain to fair-minded men why an 
alien, and even an alien enemy, should be rep- 
resented in the North and a free negro unrep- 
resented in the South. But it is said that the 
South can avoid this inequality and injustice by 
enfranchising all the negroes — for mark, they 
must all be enfranchised, or none are counted 
— a measure which the chairman of the com- 
mittee who reported this resolution tells us is 
not desirable or proper. 

But how will this proposition be received by 
the people of the nineteen original free States 
which deny suffrage to the few comparatively 
intelligent negroes within their jurisdiction? 
When you tell them that you propose to punish 
the South for not extending universal suffrage 
to her emancipated slaves, can they with any 
propriety inflict this punishment by a constitu- 
tional amendment when they are guilty of the 
same offense with far less provocation ? What 
will fifteen original slave States, who are to be 
punished by tliis proposition, say when you 
tell them that you deprive them of their just 
representation because they refuse to do what 
every fair man must admit they cannot and 
ought not to do, to enfranchise the late slaves 
without the slightest preparation for the exer- 
cise of that important privilege? 

If I were compelled to choose between the 
proposition of the committee and the resolution 
offered by the Senator from Missouri to confer 
universal suffrage at once, I should accept the 
latter, because it \js bold and affirmative, and 
has every reason in its favor that can be offered 
in support of the resolution of the committee 
without the conclusive argument of indirec- 
tion to disgrace it in the eyes of bold, honest 
men. Show me where or when the American 
people ever indorsed an indirect or equivocal 
proposition. The politician may waver and 
shrink from responsibility, but the peojile are 



honest and fearless, and whenever they are pre- 
pared to amend the Constitution, they will amend 
it in plain and direct terms for plain and direct 
reasons, and if it be true that no amendment to 
avoid this evil which is supposed to exist can be 
adopted in plain terms with the consent of the 
American people, it is some evidence that no 
great necessity exists, and is quite conclusive 
evidence that no amendment can be carried, for 
Congress cannot cheat the American people. 
I do believe that if we had not become wise 
above our day and generation, but had adopted 
the plain and simple proposition of voters as a 
basis of representation, that we could have been 
successful. But the proposition under consid- 
eration is heartily approved by none, and must 
fail sooner or later. It is illogical on its face, 
and contains within itself its own 1)est refuta- 
tion and condemnation. " Better endure the 
ills we have," than to fall into this labyrinth 
of confusion worse confounded. 

Suppose you pass this resolution, and it should 
become a part of the Constitution, what may be 
the consequences ? You have dejiarted from the 
original compromises of the Constitution ; yoii 
have deprived the »South of just representation 
for not doing a thing which you confess she 
ought not to do ; you have established the pre- 
cedent that whole sections may be punished by 
constitutional amendments ; you have com- 
menced a crusade upon the compromises of the 
Constitution, abandoning principle, and con- 
fessing that your justification rests upon expe- 
diency alone. Where shall this crusade end? 
May not the time come when the giant States 
of the Mississipi^i valley, now free from the Gulf 
to the Lakes, soon to teem with a hundred mil- 
lion inhalutants, shall inquire b}' what warrant 
of authority New England holds twelve places 
in this Senate Chaml)er? Will New England 
then reply, by equality of right, or, by the com- 
promises of the Constitution? Ifby the former, 
may not these mighty States demand a count, 
and if by the latter, may not this proposition 
be brought up in judgment against her as hav- 
ing repudiated those compromises? May not 
Kentucky some day say to Rhode Island, was 
it just for j'ou, in the day of your power, to de- 
prive me of representation, for revenge? May 
not Virginia one day complain of Connecticut, 
and may she not, by the cooperation of New 
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other great 
States, have the power to make that complaint 
effectual? Beware how you kick a sleeping 
lion. The South is now free ; the shackles of 
bondage have fallen from the slave, and idleness 
must depart from the homes of the whites. 

Why should not the richest half of the na- 
tional domain some day become the most pop- 
ulous andijowerful? I know to-day the South 
looks broken and. destroyed, prostrate, misera- 
ble, weak, and poor, but this war has done far 
more for the South than it has for the North. 
It has broken up an institution tluit was de- 
stroying the white man and impoverishing the 
countr}^, and has opened the fertile fields of that 
vast region for free labor ; and if this resolution 



11 



passes, the sons of New England and the young 
men now residing in the North will be heard 
joining their voices with the natives of the South 

Sroclaiming against the injustice which we have 
one to their adopted country. We can punish 
men, we can besiege and overrun a country, 
but an attempt to punish rich land, which is to be 
inhabited by New England Yankees like our- 
selves, is a doubtful exercise of power. 

But this ijrojjosition comes from the commit- 
tee on reconstruction, and for that reason, and 
that reason alone, we arc to presume thatithas 
something to do with that subj«>ct. How or in 
what way it will harmonize existing difficulties 
or give any additional security to the North, I 
am unable to comprehend. Its manifest injus- 
tice will inspire nothing but heart-burnings and 
discontent, and excite new enmities not only 
against the Government but against the negro, 
who will be regarded as the cause of a great 
calamity and a grievance to be removed from 
the land, and some mode will be devised where- 
by to evade the law by placing the distinction 
on some other ground besides race or color. 

Is the question of representation so impor- 
tant after all as has been supposed? It is said 
that the two fifths of the slaves who were not 
counted will give the original fifteen slave 
States eighteen more Representatives. But 
this calculation is based upon the hypothesis 
that the loss and mortality in the North have 
been equal in proportion to that in the South, 
and that there has been no greater proportional 
increase in the North than in the South during 
the past five years. The fact is, there can be 
no new apportionment of Re^jresentatives until 
the new census is taken ; and does any one 
doubt thai the loss of the South in actual 
deaths and emigration, added to the fallui-e of 
increase, will more than equal the two fifths 
of the slaves that will Ije added to the basis 
of representation by their emancipation? Be- 
side all this, the progress of the North has not 
been materially retarded by the war. By the 
census of 1860 the fifteen slave States, reject- 
ing the two fifths of the slave population, had 
eighty-five Representatives in Congress, and 
the nineteen free States one hundred and fifty- 
six. It is safe to say that a census to-day, 
based upon the Constitution as it now is, would 
not increase the representation of the original 
slave States, but it is certain it would decrease it. 

But there is another fact which Is very impor- 
^ tant in this connection. We have gained over 
to freedom someof those original slave States. 
Missouri to-day, with nine Representatives, 
is quite as radical as Massachusetts ; and Mary- 
land is only one step behind Missouri, so that 
we may take fourteen frorn the eighty-five and 
add it to the one hundred and fifty-six : and we 
hope to be able before long to add to this list 
Union men from Tennessee, and other south- 
ern States ; and we Intend to exclude from both 
Halls of Congress all but loyal men. Can we 
not in this way, with our present majority, 
keep the rebels from taking charge of this 
Government, for the present session of Con- 



gress, and for the next, and until we either 
depart from principle or disobey the will of our 
constituents and are hurled from power? 

There is no danger of rebels obtaining the 
ascendency unless we ourselves take positions 
which cannot be sustained before the country. 
But although I do not regard the da:nger of no 
amendment equal to the danger of adopting the 
illogical proposition of the committee, still I 
think my substitute, making voters the basis, 
better than no amendment, and if the idea had 
not been abandoned witliout investigation it 
would have 25assed both Houses and gone to 
the country long before this. It is the only 
true principle, if a change is to be made, upon 
which representation can be based. We must 
either take population or votes. If we take 
population, no amendment is necessary. A 
coercive proviso in favor of the negro will be 
a coercive proviso • against the proposition. 
But what objection is there to the principle 
of adopting voters as the basis of represen- 
tation? It is the voters, after all, who are the 
ultimate source of all political power. They 
decide all political questions by their votes. 
Their voice is assumed to be the voice of the 
people, and why should one elector have a 
greater voice than another, on account of his 
surroundings? Why should the young men of 
the East, who are surrounded by mothers and 
sisters anxious for their emigration to the 
undeveloped West have a greater voice in the 
councils of the nation than their more enter- 
prising brothers, surrounded by the most prod- 
igal and bounteous gifts of nature, and burning 
with a laudable desire for such representation 
and legislation as shall lead to the development 
of the homes of their adoption ? Do not the 
mighty resources of the West require more rep- 
resentation, more care, more ability in the open- 
ing of new channels of trade and new avenues 
of wealth than Is required in following the 
grooves of legislation in which the eastern 
States have so harmoniously moved from the 
organization of the Government until now? 

But the objections on the ground of there 
being a greater non-voting population in the 
East, than the West have been shown to be 
without foundation, and the principle that a 
voter in the North is equal to a voter in the 
South, I am willing to advocate anywhere as an 
independent, abstract proposition — independ- 
ent of negro or any other suifrage ; but I am not 
willing to maintain a proposition which assumes 
that population is the only just basis, and denies 
its universal application to coerce negro suf- 
frage, or to accomplish any other object. 

1 must be permitted to digress for a moment 
to examine the position of the Senator from 
Massachusetts; for it so happens that we agree 
in our ojipositlon to this resolution. He opposes 
it because he contends that the Constitution 
has already conferred power to extend suifrage 
to the negro, and for other reasons. I oppose 
it because I believe it is unjust, and for other 
reasons. But I do not wish to be understood 
as agreeing with him in his principal reason of 



12 



opposition ; for if there is anything clear to my 
mind, it is that the question of suffrage is ex- 
clusively within State jurisdiction under the 
Constitution as it now stands. It is contended 
that the provision in the Constitution that the 
United States shall guaranty to every State in 
this Union a republican form of government 
denies to the State the power to exclude the 
negro from the elective franchise. A strange 
construction, indeed! When this Constitution 
was made, a majority of the States were not 
only excluding the negro from voting, but ab- 
solutely treating him as a chattel, and continued 
so to do during all the brightest days of the 
B^epublic. I tancy that it would have taken 
something more than the eloquence of the 
Senator from Massachusetts to have convinced 
the Convention which framed the Constitution 
of the United States that a majority of its mem- 
bers, and a majority of the States there repre- 
sented for the purpc^se of forming a more per- 
fect Union, were not republican in form, but 
that it was reserved for a son of Massachusetts 
tO! ascertain that the framers of the Consti- 
tution intended and made it the duty of the 
United States to guaranty to Virginia and tke 
other slave States a different form of govern- 
ment from that which existed, until a wicked 
conspiracy sought to destroy the Union of the 
States and the free government of the fathers. 
But the honorable Senator inquires, wherein 
does the Constitution,guaranty to the States 
the right to regulate the elective franchise? A 
new doctrine ! Where, I ask, in that instrument 
have the States conferred that power upon the 
United S.tates? The power existed in the States 
before the formation of the Constitution ; and 
the Constitution provides that — 

" The powers not delegated to the United States by 
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peo- 
ple." 

But in this case we have something more than 
the mere fact that the power to regulate the 
question of suffrage was not conferred by the 
States upon the United States, and was there- 
fore reserved ; for we have the express recog- 
nition and acknowledgment of the right of the 
States to determine the qualification of electors 
or voters in the second section of the first arti- 
cle of the Constitution, wherein it is provided 
that the electors in each State shall have the 
qualifications requisite for electors (or voters) 
of the most numerous branch of the State Legis- 
lature. These plain provisions of the Constitu- 
tion have been sanctioned by uniform practice 
for over three quarters of a century, and vindi- 
cated, sustained, and expounded by every patriot 
and statesman of the present and former gener- 
ations until now, and clearly and strongly main- 
tained by the great constitutional expounder, 
and the predecessor of the Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts through a long life of service and 
usefulness, but never in more marked or unmis- 
takable language than in his reply to Hayne : 

"To <avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, 
allow me to repeat again in the fullest manner, that 



I claim no powers for the Government by forced or 
unfair construction. I admit that it is a Government 
of strictly limited powers; of enumerated, specified, 
and particularized powers, and that whatsoever is not 
granted is withheld." 

But in this case so far from the power to 
regulate suffrage being granted to the General 
Government, language is used fully recognizing 
the existence of that power in the States, and 
I fear the honorable Senator from Massachu- 
setts will be comjDelled to reason a little more 
closely or fail to acquire the reputation of his 
great predecessor as the expounder of the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

But to return to the question of reconstruc- 
tion. What has this resolution or any other 
proposition emanating from the committee to 
do with that subject? Suppose Congress should 
adopt each of these resolutions, will v^-e be any 
nearer the consummation of the great work 
before us than we were on the day when Con- * 
gress assembled? The committee has not in- 
formed us what guarantees are to be demanded 
of the South before it will be safe and proper 
to allow the late rebel States representation in 
Congress. If conditions are necessary ought 
they not to be named at once, that Congress 
may approve them and the people of the South 
adopt them ? Congress has been in session now 
nearly three months, and volumes of able and 
elaborate arguments have been made to show 
how the South can be kept out of the Union, 
and that Congress has power to exclude the 
sojrthern States from a particijjation in the 
legislation of the country, but a i^roposition or ^ 
plan for bringing them back has not appeared. " 
The plan suggested by the President has been 
severely criticised but no other has been sug- 
gested. The country is perfectly willing that 
Congress shall present a different plan from 
that of the President, and if a better one can 
be presented all Union men everywhere, and, 
I have no doubt, the President himself, would 
be quite willing to accept it, for it is certain 
that the people want Union, and will have it 
at any cost. - The history of the last five years 
is conclusive upon this point, and if no better 
plan than that suggested by the President can 
be devised, and that speedily, they want it on 
the plan of Andrew Johnson, and wilhsustain 
him and his plan against all arguments tending 
to show how disunion may be accomplished. 

I for one wanted some other guarantees be- 
sides those contained in any document I have yet 
seen emanating from the President. I wanted^ 
the repudiation of the confederate debt placed 
beyond a peradventure ; I wanted the basis of 
representation established upon the voters of 
the country ; but I would not sacrifice the Union 
for even these, for I do not believe that this 
country will ever become so degraded and lost 
to honor and patriotism as to send Senators 
and Ptepresentatives to Congress who will ever 
under any circumstances pay one dollar con- 
tracted by rebels for the overthrow of the Gov- 
ernment, but a constitutional amendment would 
avoid the agitation of such a question, and the 
other question of representation I have already 



13 



In; 
If 



shown is not so great an evil as a partial ex- 
amination of the question might indicate. 

But it is intimated that the President would 
open the doors of Congress to rebels and trai- 
tors. I deny that there is the slightest founda- 
tion for such a charge. On the contrarj', while 
he has on ail occasions disclaimed any author- 
ity or control over the action of either branch 
of Congress as to the admission of members, 
he has expressed a decided opinion that dis- 
loyal persons should be excluded from these 
Halls. In his veto message he says : 

" The right of a State to representation would in no- 
wise interfere with the discretion of Congress with 
regard to the qualifications of members; but I hold it 
fny duty to recommend to you, in the interest of peace 
|ind in the interests of the Union, the admission of 
[jvery State to its share of puljlic legislation, when, 
lowever insubordinate, insurgent, or robollious its 
)eople may have been, it presents itself not only in 
m attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the per- 
ons of Representatives whose loyalty cannot be ques- 
ioned under any constitutional or legal test." 

Again, to the delegation of Virginia, he says : 

"lie who comes as a representative, having the 
lualifications prescribed by the Constitution to fit him 
take asoat in either of the deliberative bodies which 
ionstitutcthe national Legislature, must necessarily, 
iccordiufl: to the intent of the Constitution, bcaloyal 
nan, willing to abide by and be devoted to the Union 
ind the Constitution of the States. He cannot be for 
he Constitution, he cannot be for the Union, he can- 
lot acknowledge obedience to all the laws, unless he 
s loyal." 

I challenge any man to show me that the 
President has ever advised tlie admission of reb- 
sls or traitors into Congress. And why should 
lie? Has he any cause to love treason or traitors ? 
Did they not first assail him with vituperation 
.ind abuse when he stood alone in these Halls 
and renounced party ties and party associations 
and separated himself from all his personal and 
political friends, and, braving the prejudices 
and arrogant insolence of the slave power, dared 
to stand with the hated '"abolition party," 
which was regarded by his section as degrada- 
tion and infamy, and with it defend the Union, 
defy traitors, and make war upon treason ? Why 

hould lie, when» after he left these Halls, he 
bund that traitors had laid waste his beloved 
itate, that ruin and desolation had overtaken 
his loyal constituents, and himself branded a 
criminal and outlaw for daring to defend the 
right? I like that portion of President John- 
son's plan which excludes disloyal persons from 
the Halls of Congress, and shall ever insist upon 
the faithful observance of that condition, but I 
ido believe that we should discriminate, and that 
speedily, between the loyal and the disloyal ; 
that we should commence at once to strengthen 
the hands of those in the Soutli who have been 
true to the Government during the terrible civil 
war that has passed. They were situated where, 
it cost something to be Union men. We thought 
with over one third of our population from the 
South, and they comprising the boldest politi- 
cal leaders of all the Pacific coast, perfectly 
familiar with all the machinery of party politics, 
and supported by large and constantly arriving 
reenforcements from Price's army, all eager to 
contest for political supremacy upon the chosen 



battle-field of Nevada, that it was some credit 
to be a Union man ; but if our position was un- 
comfortable, what shall we say of a Union man 
in the South where the penalty of even a sus- 
l^icion of loyalty was death ; where every Union 
soul was tortured by the concentrated heat of 
the fires of rebellion ; where there was no ray 
of hope and no bow of promise, and where to 
be for the Union was to renounce home, family, 
and country, and to be exiled and outlawed ? 

Men of the North who obtained office and 
honors, personal security and wealth by loyalty 
should pause before they question the patriotism 
of Andrew Johnson and the loyalists of Tennes- 
see, who were true to the flag of the Union when 
you had no power to succor them, when they were 
surrounded by the legions of rebellion, driven 
from their homes, their houses burned over 
their defenseless families, and those who were 
most dear to them either thrown into dungeons 
or murdered before their eyes. The struggles 
of this people surpass any other example of 
history, and all honor is due to their patriotism. 
They never did succumb to rebellion. They 
kept the Union fires burning in Tennessee in 
the darkest night of treason, and established 
and maintained their own civil government with 
small aid from the United States while the war 
was still raging. The people of the United 
States recognized the virtues and heroism of 
the Unionists of Tennessee by elevating from 
their number Andrew Johnson to the second 
place in the Government of the United States. 

But the Congress of the United States have 
closed the doors of both Houses to a loyal del- 
egation from Tennessee, chosen by those same 
Unionists. Why is this done? The country 
asks why? And if Congress would justify them- 
selves before the country, they must speedily 
open the doors to Tennessee or assign good 
and cogent reasons why those doors should re- 
main closed. It is no answer to say the Pres- 
ident had no right to organize the State of Ten- 
nessee. The President did not organize that 
State. It was organized by the people ; and if 
it were otherwise, it would not be a matter of 
the slightest practical consecpience, as the peo- 
ple have adopted it and Congress can ratify all. 
if ratification is necessary, by an admission of 
her delegation or such of them as can walk up 
to that stand and subscribe to the oath prescribed 
by Congress. And the same process can be 
adopted with other States as fast as they com- 
ply with all your tests of loyalty. There must 
be a distinction made between the loyal and the 
disloyal in the South, or every friend of the 
Government in that region will bo destroyed. 
It will not do to complain of a failure of the 
President to mak-e this distinction, while Con- 
gress is guilty of such sweeping injustice. 

Neither this Congress nor the President will 
follow the exan-^le of Pierce, who called into 
his Cabinet the arch traitor Jeff". Davis, and his 
legion of minions and traitors into almost every 
place of power and trust in the Government, 
immediately after their overthrow by the Union- 
ists of the South in the memorable contest of 



14 



18-51. Yie have not forgotten how Buchanan, 
through his infamous Secretary of War, Floyd, 
armed the disunionists of the South and left these 
same loyalists of Tennessee and other sections 
to struggle without hope and without aid against 
armed traitors, under the treasonable plea that 
'there was no power in this Government to main- 
tain its own existence by force, until almost the 
entire South were plunged or driven into the 
most cruel, bloody, and wicked war that his- 
tory has recorded. Who does not believe, if 
the power and patronage of the Government 
during Pierce's Administration had been in the 
hands of Unionists, and if Buchanan had fol- 
lowed that example and called none but Union- 
ists abont him, and armed none but Unionists, 
and executed the laws as his oath required, but 
that this war could have been averted? And 
who does not confidently hope and expect that 
a Union party can now be built up in the 
South, ever faithful and true, by commencing 
with those whose loyalty has been tested by 
this war, and admitting them to our confidence 
and thereby establishing a nucleus around which 
the people of the South can rally? But this 
never can be done by declaring a want of con- 
fidence in the faithful equally with the unfaith- 
ful. We have nothing to fear from the people 
of the South. Uninfluenced by passion and un- 
deceived by demagogues, they will soon learn 
to love that Union which they had known only 
as a blessing until justice required that they 
should be punished for the rebellion into which 
they were plunged by the most wicked conspiracy 
that can ever disgrace the history of man. 

But the resolution under consideration was 
born in the excitement of passion created by 
the veto of the Freedmen's Bureau bill. It 
Was announced that last week there was a dis- 
position to admit Tennessee, but that all was 
changed, not for anything that Tennessee had 
done, but because the President had exercised 
his constitutional power to veto a bill, and 
this resolution passed the House under the 
"previous question" without argument or a 
morheut's time for the voice of reason to be 
heard. Suppose the President had no 'right 
to veto the bill, was that a reason why Con- 
gress should do wrong, or act rashly and un- 
wisely? I think candid and fair men will say 
it was no i-eason, and if this resolution would 
not have appeared but for that action of the 
President, it should now be defeated, for that 
action furnishes no ground for its adoption. 
But did the President after all commit such an 
offense against his party or his country as to 
subject him to condemnation? I voted for and 
supported theFreedmen'sBureau bill, although 
conferring, as it did, vast discretionary power 
upon the President. I did this because I was anx- 
ious to do all in my power to protect the freed- 
man, and to atford him a chancato live and labor 
and enjoy the fruits of his labor, but I did this 
supposing the President could sign it and carry 
its provisions into effect. This, upon examina- 
tion, he found he could not do, and I was un- 
willing to embarrass the situation of the freed- 



menbyplacing on the statute-book a law which 
would be a nullity unless it could be executed 
by the Executive, and it could hardly be sup- 
posed that the President could exercise his dis- 
cretion to carry into effect a law which he 
himself believed to be unconstitutional and a 
violation of his oath of ofSce. 

Believing that the President had acted hon- 
estly, and knowing that the objections which 
he urged were of grave consideration, and had 
been so regarded by the friends of the bill, I 
felt called upon to sustain the veto, believing 
that more could be done for the freedmen by 
cooperating with the President who had already 
done so well and so miTch for them than by the 
passage of a bill to which he was so much op- 
posed. I think even now, in view of the con- 
struction of the former law by the President, 
as indicated by the letter of General Howard, 
that the real friends of the freedman will say I ^ 
was right. But, independent of the merits of 
the Freedmen's Bureau bill, I was alarmed for 
my country at the excitement which prevailed, 
and particularly from the haste with which this 
resolution was being pressed in the other House, 
and felt that neither the Union party nor the 
country could aftbrd to allow a bill, of what- 
ever character, to l^e passed over the veto of 
the President under such extraordinary cir- 
cumstances. I thought it was time to stop and 
reflect before we took such action as might • 
forever separate the President and Congress. 

I felt that the country called upon us, both 
President and Congress, to harmonize in the , 
great work before us, not only in protecting the J|' 
freedmen, but in restoring the Union of these 
States. He had proven to the world his desire 
to protect the freedmen by the thorough organ- 
ization of a bureau under the charge of one of 
the most able and trusted officers of the United 
States ; and while he was earnestly engaged in 
the good work I was unwilling to eralmrrass 
him by the passage of what he regarded as an 
unconstitutional law. I believed that he was 
honestly and faithfully carrying out the princi- 
ples of the Union party which nominated and 
elected him, and that his cooperation with the 
Union men was absolutely necessary to a res- 
toration of the Union ; and I was unwilling to 
weaken his influence or alienate him from the 
Union majority in Congress by passing a bill 
over his veto in a moment of excitement or pas- ,,• 
sion. Has Andrew Johnson violated any obli- 
igation to the Union party ? I have here the Bal- . 
timore platform upon which he was nominated : 

•Resolved, That it is the highest duty of every Amer- 
ican citizen to maintain against all their enemies 
the integrity of the Union and the paramount author- 
ity of the Constitution and laws of the United States; 
and that, laying aside all differences of political opin- 
ions, we pledge ourselves as Union men, animated 
by a common sentiment, and aiming at a common 
object, to do everything in our power to aid the Gov- 
ernment in cxuelling by force of arms the rebellion 
now raging against its authority, and in bringing to 
the punishment due to their crimes the rebels and 
traitors arrayed against it. 

Resolved, That we approve the determination of 
the Government of the United States not to compro- 
mise with rebels, nor to offer any terms of peace ex- 



15 



cept such as may bo based upon an unconditional 
surrender" of theirliostility and a return to their just 
allegiance to the Constitution and laws ot the Unitod 
States, and that we call upon the Government to 
maintain this position, and to prosecute the war with 
^e utmost possible vigor to tlio complete suppres- 
sion of the rebellion, in full reliance upon the se t- 
sacrifice, the patriotism, the heroic valor and e 
undying devotion of the American people to the 
country and its free institutions. 

I^llved, That as slavery was the cause, and now 
constitutes the strength of this rebellion, and as it 
SbTaTways ami everywhere hostile to thejmn«- 

F-^^'^^/oaffty^aemanTirs'uUeTand 
tion from the soU of the R<^y«''jic,; a^d that we uphold 
an 
th 
bl 

more, of suc.^ «^ — .--;— ,- -^ -n -t . ,,.; . 
be mado by the people in conformity with U* pio\ k-,- 
ions. as shall termiiiate and orcver prohibit the ex- 
istence of slavery withm the limits ot the jurisdiction 
of' the United States. ,,.„»• i 

Resolved, That the thanks of the Amencan people 
are due to the soldiers and sailors of the Army and 
Navy who have periled their lives indeienseot their 
country and in vindication of the honor ot the flag; 
that the nation owes to them some permanent recog- 
nition of their patriotism and valor, and ample and 
permanent provision for those of their survivors who 
have received disabling and honorable wounds in the 
service of the country, and that the memories ol those 
who have fallen in its defense shall be held in grate- 
ful and everlasting remembrance. 

Resolved, That we approve and applaud the prac- 
tical wisdom, the unselfish patriotism, and unswerv- 
ing fidelity to the Constitution and the principles ot 
American liberty with which Abraham Lincoln has 
discharged under circumstances ot unparalleled dit- 
ficulty the great duties and responsibilities ot the 
presidential office; that we approve and indorse, as 
demanded by the emergency and essential to the 
preservation of the nation, and as within the Consti- 
tution, the measures and acts which he has adopted 
to defend the nation against its open and secret foes; 
that we approve especially the proclamation of eman- 
cipation, and the employment as Union soldiers of 
men heretofore held in slavery; and that we have 
full confidence in his determination to carry these and 
all other constitutional measures essential to the sal- 
vation of the country into full and complete eflect. 
Resolved, That we deem it essential to the general 
welfare that harmony should prevail iu the national 
councils, and we regard as worthy of public confidence 
and ofiicial trust those only who cordially indorse 
the principles proclaimed in these resolutions, and 
which should characterize the adminiBtration of the 
Government. 

Resolved, That the Government owes to all men em- 
ployed in its armies, without regard to distinction of 
color, the full protection of the laws of war; andthat 
any violation of these laws or of the usages of civil- 
ized nations in the time of war by the rebels now in 
arms, should be made the subject of full and prompt 
redress. * 

Resolved, That the foreign immigration, which in 
the past has added so much to the wealth and devel- 
opment of the resources and increase of power to this 
nation, tho :isylum"of the oppressed of all nations, 
should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and 
, just policy. 

• Resolved, That we are in favor of the speedy con- 
struction of a railroad to the Pacific. 

Resolveit, That the national faith, pledged for the 
redemption of the public debt, must be kept inviolate ; 
and that for this purpose we recommend economy and 
rigid responsibility in the public expenditures, and 
a vigorous and just system of taxation ; that it is the 
duty of every loyal State to sustain the credit and pro- 
mote the use of the national currency. 

Resolved, That we approve the position taken by 
the Government that the peopleof the United States 
never regarded with indifference the attempt of any 
European Power to overthrow by force, or to supplant 
by fraud, the institutions of any republican Govern- 
ment on the western continent; and that they view 
with extreme jealousy, as menacing to the peace and 
independence ot this our country, the efforts of any 



such Power to obtain new footholds for monarchical 
Governments, sustained by foreign military torco, in 
near proximity to the United States. 

If at the time that platform was adopted we 
could have had union upon the terms that are 
now offered— suppose that we coukl have had 
union then upon the plan of Lincohi and John- 
son : is there anv person livintf in the United 
States who believes there would have been op- 
postion to it? If we could have foreseen when 
that platform was adopted that hj the month of 
March, 1866, every southern State would have 
laid down its arms, that not only the northern 
States but nearly eveiy one of the sotithern 
States would have adopted the constitutional 
amendment referred to in that platform, and 
not only adopted it but abolished slavery by 
their own Legislatures, and would be anxious 
to be restored to their relations to the Union 
upon almost any terms that Congress or the 
President might suggest — if that picture had 
been presented to us then, would it not have 
made the hearts of the American people glad? 
To-day we have that picture before us. _ We 
have union within our power upon the princi- 
ples laid down in that platform carried out to 
the fullest extent, and the question is, shall we 
accept it or shall we destroy the Union party 
by the introduction of new propositions and 
new theories ? I stand by the platform of 1864. 
I say that the Union men who rallied around 
the "flag under that platform cannot be excom- 
municated from the party while they stand by 
that platform. It is the party pledge, and before 
new party tests are required the people mus* 
again assemble and make new party declarations. 
Now, I repeat my question, what principle 
In that platform has the President violated? 
You say he has usurped power. How? In 
inviting the loyal men of the South to organize 
State governments, and fixing conditions. I 
ask, what condition did he impose that had not 
been already determined by the war, or what 
principle did he abandon that had been vindi- 
cated by the war? Mr. Lincoln's plan of re- 
construction which he follov/ed was made an 
issue in that canvass and triumphantly sus- 
tained by the people. Was it not to be expected 
that Mr. Johnson when he came into power 
would follow the indorsed plan and retain in 
his Cabinet the well-tried constitutional advisers 
of his predecessor? And for doing this is he to 
be condemned? Have ^\& a right to force new 
issues which the people never have and prob- 
ably never will sustain, and demand their adop- 
tion or resolve upon .the destruction of tlie Ad- 
ministration upon which the existence of the 
party, if not the Union, depends? 

One issue which is constantly urged, and 
which is a disturbing element, is the question 
of immediate and universal negro suffrage. 
ISIany Senators have discussed that proposi- 
tion. Very few of them say whether they are 
for or against it, but they are constantly agi- 
tating and discussing it. Why do they discuss 
it if they are not for it? If they are not for it, 
it has no business in these discussions. But 



<l 



16 



the committee of fifteen, while not demanding 
negro suffrage directly, are willing to do it by 
indirection, or deprive one section of the coun- 
try of what they admit is just representation ; 
and it has been frequently said that it was the 
only difficulty in the way of restoration. The 
New York Tribune, .the leading organ of these 
views, the paper which complains most bitterly 
of the President, and which is followed by a 
great portion of the press, says: 

"Let it be distinctly understood that, if the whites 
of the South are not represented in Congress, it is 
because they deny all right of representation or power 
of self-protection to the blacks. Show us a single 
State which admits hffl- blacks to vote on alike intel- 
lectual, educational, moral, and pecuniary basis with 
her whites, and we will urge the instant admission of 
tite chosen Representatives of that State, though they 
be all ex-rebel generals of the most obnoxious type." 

There the New York Tribune, the leading 
journal advocating these views, says distinctly, 
let the negroes vote and we will advocate the 
admission of ex-rebels of the most obnoxious 
type into the Halls of Congress. If Senators 
continue to argue the question of negro suf- 
frage without stating whether they are for or 
against it, the country is bound to infer there- 
from that after all that is the issue. If it i»not 
the issue, it should not be discussed here in 
these troublesome times. If the South is to be 
hept out iintil negro suffrage can be accom- 
plished, the quicker the country know it the 
better. If you discuss that question contin- 
ually they will believe that it is the only issue, 
and you will destroy the Union party. • 

It is sufficient to say in defense of the Presi- 
dent for not conferring the right of suffrage 
upon the negro in the organization of the south- 
ern States, that neither the platform of his 
party, the Congress of the United States, nor 
the policy of his predecessor, would have war- 
ranted him in such action. 

But if the question of negro suffrage is not 
the difficulty, what is the difficulty? Is his 
plan of restoration so plainly and obviously 
wrong as has been asserted? If so, it ought 
not to be a difficult matter to suggest a better 
one. But has this been done? Has not the mat- 
ter been agitating the country for near eighteen 
months, and has any plan been suggested that 
would be more acceptable to the majority in 
Congress than that of the President? The 
committee of fifteen have labored long, and I 
presume diligently,, aixl h.ave failed to produce 
a plan which seems likely to meet with the ap- 
proval even of those who claim to be the great- 
est friends and champions of the freedraen. 



The Senator from Massachusetts himself, who 
has spent a lifetime in defense of the negro 
race, is constrained to re2)udiate the main prop- 
osition of the committee. Let me appeal to the 
Union majority of this House to act promptly 
and receive at once the loyal Representatives 
from the South, for if the Union party fails, 
which it seems likely to do, after all its glorious 
achievements, it will be overthrown, and the 
loyal masses of the country will rally around 
the Executive and enable lilm to- o-ooriuiplish- 
the great work ; for, be assured, the Union will 
be preserved, and if we prove incompetent, 
others will take our places. It is said that we 
must give the committee time to act, but let me 
tell them, that great emergencies demand imme- 
diate action. When the national finances are 
depressed with uncertainty ; when the nation 
is groaning under three thousand millions of 
debt ; while every house in all this broad land 
is in mourning for the sacrifices made for the 
Union of these States ; when the only hope of 
thirty million people is centered in restoration 
and peace, delays for matter of form cannot 
long be endured. 

If the committee would free itself from the 
growing apprehension that its counsels are 
controlled by the well-known and destructive 
— permit me to say — sentiments of Thaddeus 
Stevens, of Pennsylvania, they must present 
at once some feasible plan by which harmony 
can be restored ; and until such a plan is pre- 
sented, the Lincoln-Johnsou plan will remain 
the only way to jseace and Union known to 
the American people. I appeal to the loyal 
majority of this House to sink all minor dif- 
ferences and secure the Union of these States, 
with slavery, the parent of secession, abol- 
ished, with the dignity and honor of the na- 
tion preserved and vindicated, with the free 
Constitution of the' fathers intact, before dis- 
cord and confusion shall have again drenched 
this land with fraternal blood. We are called 
upon by all that we hold most sacred and dear 
to secure at once the fruits of victory, to risk 
nothing to chance or anarchy ; and if we can- 
not ol)tain all we would, let us obtain what we 
can. If we preserve what we now have, an 
all-wise Providence, in his own good time, will 
grant us still greater blessings and greater 
advancement in the work of regeneration and 
reform ; but if anarchy and discord are allowed 
by us to obscure the bright sunshine of peace 
which is lighting the way and cheering the 
hearts of the benevolent and true, a fearful 
responsibility awaits us. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 




Ml 

W 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 777 % 



